Thursday, May 03, 2012

Gardner Multiple Intelligences or school subjects mirrored?

Howard
Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is opposed to the idea of
intelligence being a single measurable attribute. His is a direct attack on the
practice of psychometric tests and behaviourism, relying more on genetic,
instinctual and evolutionary arguments to build a picture of the mind. He also
disputes the Piaget notion of fixed developmental stages, claiming that a child
can be at various stages of development across different intelligences.

Evidence for intelligences

He
viewed intelligence as “the capacity to
solve problems or to fashion products that are valued in one or more cultural
setting” (Gardner & Hatch, 1989). These criteria were identified by him
as 'signs' of an intelligence:

1.
Potential isolation by brain damage.

2.
The existence of idiot savants, prodigies and other exceptional individuals.

3.
An identifiable core operation or set of operations.

4.
A distinctive development history, along with a definable set of 'end-state'
performances.

5.
An evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility.

6.
Support from experimental psychological tasks.

7.
Support from psychometric findings.

8.
Susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system.

Multiple
intelligences (8)

These
criteria were used to identify a list of eight ‘intelligences’. His thoughts on
what constitute intelligence have developed over time. The first two are ones
that have been typically valued in schools; the next three are usually
associated with the arts; and the final three are what Howard Gardner called
'personal intelligences'.

7. Intrapersonal:
Self-knowledge and ability to understand and use one’s inner knowledge.

8. Naturalist:
Ability to draw upon the immediate environment to make judgements.

It is important to understand that these
intelligences operate together and complement each other. He has described
people as having blends of intelligences.

(Note that this last intelligence was added
later, in 1999.)

Application
of the theory

Gardner
has also worked towards a full set of recommendations on the use of multiple
intelligence theory in schools. The Unschooled
Mind, Intelligence Reframed, and The Disciplined Mind look at how the
theory may be applied by educators. This has led to a broader more holistic
view of education, being less rigid about abstract and academic learning. It
demands knowledge fo these intelligences among teachers, an aspirational
approach to learning, more collaboration between teachers of different
disciplines, better and more meaningful curriculum choices and a wider use of
the arts.

Criticism

John
White has criticised the theory as being subjective and not validated by
evidence. Rather than being derived from solid empirical evidence, Gardner
seems to draw his taxonomy from broad observations. It is also not clear how
this maps on to actual cognitive functions, as it depends (variably) on the
learner dealing with actual content in various forms. In fact, it also bears an
uncanny resemblance to the current curriculum subjects. White suggests that
this is why it has been so enthusiastically adopted by teachers.

Gardner
has also been criticised for simply perpetuating the idea of ‘intelligences’,
pigeon-holing students, rather than exploring their potential. again this is a
general problem with learning styles and multiple intelligences theory. It may
actually thwart attempts to teach and learn skills that the students has not
yet mastered, thereby doing more harm than good.

Gardner
himself has been surprised and at times disappointed by the way his theory has
been applied in schools, in one case as, “a
mish-mash of practices…Left Right brain contrasts….learning styles….NLP, all
mixed up with dazzling promiscuity”. In the US some schools have redesigned
the whole curriculum, classrooms and even entire schools around the theory,
which may be several steps too far. The point is to be sensitive to these
intelligences, not to let them prescribe all practice. However, Project SUMIT (Schools Using Multiple Intelligences Theory)
does claims to have identified real progress across the board in schools that
have indeed been sensitive to Gardner’s theories.

Conclusion

Gardner
has strong appeal to educators looking for practical support for existing subject
specialisms but there are doubts about the theory as serious experimental
psychology. Many do not see his ‘intelligences’ as a comparable set of abilities
as some, such as musical intelligence, do not have the same consequential
impact as others. He has also been criticised for not testing his theories
experimentally and failing to identify exactly why he chose his particular
criteria for intelligence. What is clear, however, is
that Gardner has opened up the debate and affected real practice in educational
institutions around the whole person with a spread of subjects and approaches
to learning. This fits teachers’ intuitive feel for the abilities of those they
teach. While the theory may be rather speculative, his identified intelligences
represent real dispositions, abilities, talents and potential, which many
schools ignore.